onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Deceased Status In Templates
Lately, I've noticed the "Deceased" (and, to a less extent, "non-canon" and "former") word in gallery and navigation box templates next to character names. Isn't that too cluttered? I propose two alternative methods: # Just don't put that there. # Add a † next to their names instead, with a legend below the template. For suggestion 2, try comparing from the gallery below. :† = Deceased :x = Former :* = Non-canon As for "non-canon" and "former", we could use other symbols if these don't look right. What does everyone think? 02:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Side note :As a side note: I've noticed Gasu Gasu no Mi, Yuki Yuki no Mi, and the two Mushi Mushi no Mi are all not following the unique color schemes for each Devil Fruit. Just a reminder, as it seems too farfetched to create another forum just for a reminder. 02:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Discussion No. Original way is 100% better. SeaTerror (talk) 02:31, October 26, 2013 (UTC) That's always how you look at it. 02:35, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Because it is the truth. It also doesn't clutter the templates like you claim. SeaTerror (talk) 02:36, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah? Try this: First one is expanding to 3 lines second one is just 2. 02:38, October 26, 2013 (UTC) It may take up more room on the template, but at least it keeps it on the template. No need to take up more space on the whole page. At least the template isolates it. 03:06, October 26, 2013 (UTC) But the words make it look partially like it's part of the character's name, like Saint Charloss. 03:17, October 26, 2013 (UTC) This sounds like a good idea. It's sometimes bothered me when there's little text in a giant block because it happens to be in the same row as one that covers three lines. 03:21, October 26, 2013 (UTC) I honesty doubt that the readers will be able to understand what those symblos mean. 04:15, October 26, 2013 (UTC) That's why we put a symbol legend on the bottom (or wherever seems nice). 04:21, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Or a third idea: we place "non-canon", "deceased" and "former" into a separate section of the template, like "Former World Nobles" etc. We do that for many templates, but some we just add the parenthesis instead. Now, we can actually separate them, even if there is just one non-canon or whatnot. As in: Blackbeard defected from the Whitebeard Pirates, so he goes under a section titled "Former Members". Likewise, all deceased members of the crew goes under "Deceased Members". 04:25, October 26, 2013 (UTC) :Meaning, we get rid of all the parenthesis inside the template. I mean, the Marines Template has the Former Marines with parenthesis of "Defected", "Deceased", "Promoted". Is that all necessary? They are already under "Former Marines" section, no need to be so detailed inside. 04:29, October 26, 2013 (UTC) I think the reason for the extra detail in the "former" section is so the reader will be able to know why they're no longer a Marine. It's quick information rather than forcing the reader to search through their pages. Also, I don't think having "non-canon" and such into a separate is a very good idea because sometimes there are only one or two characters that would be in that section. It's too much space. As for the Legend, I think an effective way is to have it on the bottom AND have it tell you what it is if you hover over it with the mouse. I know a lot Wikis do this, I think we do but I don't know a page with an example. 04:53, October 26, 2013 (UTC) "That's why we put a symbol legend on the bottom (or wherever seems nice)" You don't see the irony of wanting to remove the parentheses while cluttering up the templates with more useless crap like that? As Nada said it would be useless space for only one or two members. The detail is also good because it gives the reader detail as to why something happened. SeaTerror (talk) 05:58, October 26, 2013 (UTC) I see no reason to be too detailed in the templates. That's why we have links, so readers can enter the pages to read about who died and why. "Former", "Defected", "Retired". Why do we have all those cluttering? Just have the name, no more, no less. 07:14, October 26, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Nada. I've seen other wikis use this as well. 07:27, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Sometime they are just looking at an idea of the members. They don't want to go to the pages in that case. The best thing to do is leave it how we have it currently. There is absolutely no real reason to get rid of it. SeaTerror (talk) 08:06, October 26, 2013 (UTC) The reason we try these new things is to see if they improve the wiki's appearance. Apparently, having 3-4 lines in a template does NOT. Adding things to everything is not always a good thing. 08:11, October 26, 2013 (UTC) You would definitely not be improving anything by removing something that is valid. Besides you're the only one that thinks that they ruin templates. SeaTerror (talk) 08:52, October 26, 2013 (UTC) I just think they add too much lines into the names. The name lines are almost as large as the portraits. Galleries and Naviboxes only serve to show us who's in the organization, not what happened to them. It's getting late on my side now, so I'll be taking my leave for a little while. 09:12, October 26, 2013 (UTC) I think it's cool as it is. I remember the info in the parenthesis worked really fine for me when I first started visiting this wiki as an AWC. :Why not just use symbol with a tooltip like † ?' ~ UltimateSupreme' 10:00, October 26, 2013 (UTC) :It's ok for the "deceased" state but it would be a real drag to come up with symbols for all other states and still remember which is which afterwards. There is "deceased", "defected", "resigned", "revoked", "retired", "promoted" and who knows how many more. ::A template can handle it easily.' ~ UltimateSupreme' 10:19, October 26, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Supreme,a symbol with a tool tip († (hover over the symbol) and also the legend should be on the top IMO-- I like that. Why not? 17:15, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Nobody sees the irony about complaining about cluttering yet a legend would clutter it up even more? SeaTerror (talk) 19:16, October 26, 2013 (UTC)